My man Jimmy C from chengdu is back! Thanks for reviewing and comparing lenses that no one else on RUclips or online bother or dare to review. It’s much much appreciated for the working professional! Thanks brother! Keep it up, and thanks for investing in lenses to make these videos for us!
what an excellant review everyone is waiting for. Thanks Jimmy. Personally i have picked brass nickle Nokton II for every day use, it also has 0.7m closer focus than the 0.9m Sonnar.
Thanks Jimmy for this excellent review. I got the Sonnar second hand, for a very good price, without knowing its characteristics. As my first lens for Leica and coming from a Sony I thought, what the hell is that. So I also bought the Nokton. The other day I went to take some pictures with both to a second hand vi tage market in Barcelona and guess that I prefer the Sonnar for that. So I will keep the 2. The Nokton which is excellent for all around ocassions and the Sonnar (with the 35 nokton 1.4) for those more dreamy and vintage intentions
Dr. Bertele came up with a 5 element 3-group design called Sonnar in 1929, 6 element 3-group in 1931, and 7 element 3-group in 1932. Since, there have been many lenses called Sonnar, of different design. Plus derivatives of the design. After the original company folded into Zeiss Ikon (Zeiss' camera brand) it became a Zeiss thing. "Sonnar" was a reference to "sun" as the name was used for lens designs that were faster while still good, not because all Sonnar designs are the same. Let's say in today's terms they are moderately fast.
@@JimmyCheng - maybe it is, maybe not. Years ago, Sony released a compact with a fixed 35mm called Sonnar IIRC. The 3K$ one. It had a bunch of elements from here to Tokyo. The point of the design was to project the image in a different way than classical lens designs. Its rear end was like a condenser lens and almost touched the sensor. The problem with such designs is that so many elements (air>glass and glass>air transitions) glare (across the frame haze) and flare (recognizable shapes) become a problem. The former leads to reduced contrast (ans contour sharpness). This is the kind of problem that makes cinemato-photographers anally retentive with their matte boxes as their "cine primes" have so many elements that any bit of backlight already helixes [1] things up. You need incredibly good coatings to prevent that and that's what we see e.g. in Nikon's lenses with 20 elements or so that give you problems in causing aperture or sun trails. Note that cine-primes are actually subtle zoom lenses that compensate the zooming in effect of focusing closer by than infinity by zooming out to compensate precisely. Also note that in doing so, as focal length remains constant that way, these lenses would not suffer from aperture breathing. As to the projection to the sensor being an issue (because of the Bayer colour grid and OLPF in the first place), this is why Leica took so long to come up with a full frame sensor. They had to develop an OLPF that changes angle from the center to farther from there. Imagine a Fresnel lens but now with the rings cut up in staves and changing angles. This is a compromise and the OLPF above some 36MP becomes a nuisance. So, my guess, it likely is no longer present in their newer cameras with many more MP. Which all points to one thing: old lens designs are not necessarily well adapted to today's the Bayer reality. What Leica did with the 24MP sensor also is a compromise that works well for a small set of their old lens designs that they still wanted to "support". [1] a helix is a screw
I love the rendering of the Nokton also. Could you compare the Nokton with the Thypoch Eureka 50mm F1.4? I think it’d an interesting comparison considering their similar price point. Thank you.
@@ralphsaad8637 sorry I don’t think i will. It’s very close to the 50 1.2 which I have reviewed on this channel and was my favourite before the 1.5 came out. But only due to size difference.
@@lelandfitz1762 if you set the exposure constant, by closing down the lens, either your iso would rise or shutter speed will be longer. In this case, it’s darker because of vignette and I was comparing edge/corner sharpness in the zoomed in photo
![Digital Circus Episode 4 [TRAILER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/abZtsmMUbJo/mqdefault.jpg)
My man Jimmy C from chengdu is back! Thanks for reviewing and comparing lenses that no one else on RUclips or online bother or dare to review. It’s much much appreciated for the working professional! Thanks brother! Keep it up, and thanks for investing in lenses to make these videos for us!
Jimmy does all the testing for all the lenses I am interested in. The best channel in universe.
haha thanks!
what an excellant review everyone is waiting for. Thanks Jimmy. Personally i have picked brass nickle Nokton II for every day use, it also has 0.7m closer focus than the 0.9m Sonnar.
@@ngterry9653 ah right! Forgot to mention that!
Thanks for the comparison, I prefer the Norton too.
great video, very informative ! well done and thanks !
thank you, appreciated it.
I love my Sonar on my film Leica M. ❤
yeah I bet it's lovely on film.
I have both too. The nickel/glass Nokton is so buttery. It actually made me not want a bigger summilux.
@@ccoppola82 exactly！ I just recently sold my lux asph
Thanks Jimmy for this excellent review. I got the Sonnar second hand, for a very good price, without knowing its characteristics. As my first lens for Leica and coming from a Sony I thought, what the hell is that. So I also bought the Nokton. The other day I went to take some pictures with both to a second hand vi tage market in Barcelona and guess that I prefer the Sonnar for that. So I will keep the 2. The Nokton which is excellent for all around ocassions and the Sonnar (with the 35 nokton 1.4) for those more dreamy and vintage intentions
@@zettepix2009 thank you for sharing your experience. Both are worth keeping in my case as well.
Dr. Bertele came up with a 5 element 3-group design called Sonnar in 1929, 6 element 3-group in 1931, and 7 element 3-group in 1932. Since, there have been many lenses called Sonnar, of different design. Plus derivatives of the design. After the original company folded into Zeiss Ikon (Zeiss' camera brand) it became a Zeiss thing. "Sonnar" was a reference to "sun" as the name was used for lens designs that were faster while still good, not because all Sonnar designs are the same. Let's say in today's terms they are moderately fast.
Wow, that was good to know. Great stuff! I believe this is the 6 ele 3 group version Dr.Bertele did early 1930s.
@@JimmyCheng - maybe it is, maybe not. Years ago, Sony released a compact with a fixed 35mm called Sonnar IIRC. The 3K$ one. It had a bunch of elements from here to Tokyo. The point of the design was to project the image in a different way than classical lens designs. Its rear end was like a condenser lens and almost touched the sensor.
The problem with such designs is that so many elements (air>glass and glass>air transitions) glare (across the frame haze) and flare (recognizable shapes) become a problem. The former leads to reduced contrast (ans contour sharpness). This is the kind of problem that makes cinemato-photographers anally retentive with their matte boxes as their "cine primes" have so many elements that any bit of backlight already helixes [1] things up.
You need incredibly good coatings to prevent that and that's what we see e.g. in Nikon's lenses with 20 elements or so that give you problems in causing aperture or sun trails.
Note that cine-primes are actually subtle zoom lenses that compensate the zooming in effect of focusing closer by than infinity by zooming out to compensate precisely. Also note that in doing so, as focal length remains constant that way, these lenses would not suffer from aperture breathing.
As to the projection to the sensor being an issue (because of the Bayer colour grid and OLPF in the first place), this is why Leica took so long to come up with a full frame sensor. They had to develop an OLPF that changes angle from the center to farther from there. Imagine a Fresnel lens but now with the rings cut up in staves and changing angles. This is a compromise and the OLPF above some 36MP becomes a nuisance. So, my guess, it likely is no longer present in their newer cameras with many more MP.
Which all points to one thing: old lens designs are not necessarily well adapted to today's the Bayer reality.
What Leica did with the 24MP sensor also is a compromise that works well for a small set of their old lens designs that they still wanted to "support".
[1] a helix is a screw
I love the rendering of the Nokton also. Could you compare the Nokton with the Thypoch Eureka 50mm F1.4? I think it’d an interesting comparison considering their similar price point. Thank you.
@@Edwin_Lam unfortunately I don’t have the Thypoch and not sure if I’ll support them by buying one myself due to my previous experience
Hello Jimmy! Will you be reviewing the Voigtlander 40mm F1.2? I think you would like it
@@ralphsaad8637 sorry I don’t think i will. It’s very close to the 50 1.2 which I have reviewed on this channel and was my favourite before the 1.5 came out. But only due to size difference.
Having both, I prefer the Sonnar - the Nokton is sharper across the frame, but the Sonnar is prettier where it counts.
@@kama-kiri6496 that’s a fantastic way to put it!
I don't know much about lenses. Why do the book shelf pics look darker at 1.5 than 2 or 2.8? I always thought 1.5 makes brightest pictures.
@@lelandfitz1762 if you set the exposure constant, by closing down the lens, either your iso would rise or shutter speed will be longer. In this case, it’s darker because of vignette and I was comparing edge/corner sharpness in the zoomed in photo
@@JimmyCheng Thanks!
been using this c sonnar for 10 or more years . its really a gem . used it on an m7 , nex 7 , m9 , a7r2 , monochome camera , now a7cmk2 🫢
@@bene123photographer wow that’s a keeper for sure!